asked the Minister for Transport the measures the Government intend to take to keep the estimated deficit for CIE for the full year within the projected figure of £65 million.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - CIE Deficit.
33.
As Deputies are aware, measures announced by the Government on 29 April aimed at reducing inflation included a deferment of increases in CIE charges pending the outcome of the review currently being undertaken of CIE policies and services. Meanwhile, the board are also in consultation with the trades unions, examining what measures might be possible to achieve economies. I am at present awaiting a report from the board on these consultations and on the financial implications of any measures that may emerge from them.
Is it a fact that, with the rate of inflation and under the terms of the national understanding, the projected deficit for CIE in 1981 will more likely be £85 million rather than £65 million? Virtually five months of the year have passed and the Minister has yet to point out what measures have to be taken to stay within the stipulated amount of £65 million. Will he please tell us what is going to be done?
I am not so aware. As the Deputy knows, a comprehensive review of all matters concerned with public transport is being undertaken by the Government at this time. It is matter for public debate. Quite a number of organisations and individuals have contributed and we hope that more will do so. The Government proposals will then be considered subsequent to this debate.
Can the Minister confirm that the initial cost to CIE in terms of lost revenue from the original deferral of the various increases was of the order of £.5 million per week and that that will be the continuing extra cost to the Exchequer per week of the decision of the Government announced by him?
I am not aware that the matter of this costing had been quantified in the terms suggested by the Deputy.
Is the Minister suggesting that the Government took a decision to defer a fares increase to CIE without inquiring or knowing what it is going to cost them or us?
The Government took the decision as their contribution in the circumstances that prevailed at the time and this matter will be a feature of the overall review later in the year.
Is the Minister saying that the Government took a decision, the merits of which I shall not go into at this point, without investigating the financial implications of it in any way?
The Government were fully aware of all the implications of the decision they took in the best interests of the common good——
What are the financial implications?
The figures are not readily available to me, but if the Deputy wishes to put down a further question I should be delighted to deal with it.
Can the Minister give us any estimate of the deficit to date?
That information is not readily available either, but should the Deputy wish to put down a question I shall be delighted to deal with it. I would point out that there has been increased revenue in the recent past; increased passenger numbers have been carried by CIE and there has been increased freight handling also. These matters, coupled with the general review, will no doubt have a big impact on the final decisions taken by the Government later in the year.
Will the Minister agree that the deferment will add to the deficit of CIE?
That is not necessarily so. I have indicated that there are two areas where you have increased activity and increased revenue for CIE. I certainly hope that there will be a balancing-off situation.
If and when CIE run out of money to pay the men, will the Government provide it?
I do not know what prompted the Deputy to make that demand but, as I understand it, there is no question of it.
A final supplementary from Deputy Barry.
CIE applied to the National Prices Commission some time in January — is that correct — for a price increase?
They did apply to the National Prices Commission.
And the National Prices Commission granted that increase?
Yes, I understand that to be the case.
It then went through your Department to the Government for final ratification.
The day-to-day running of CIE, as the Deputy knows, is a matter for CIE.
This was a Government decision.
Is it true that CIE applied to the National Prices Commission for an increase in January, that the National Prices Commission said they were entitled to it——
I have already answered in the affirmative.
I want to go back over it because the Minister is dodging a section of it. It came to the Minister's Department and went through the Department of Transport to the Government for final ratification — is that correct?
It is normal practice for CIE to let the Department know when they propose to make price increases.
It is a statutory obligation.
That is the normal practice.
Therefore the Minister has on his file the amount of money involved. Would he mind giving the House the figure? Will he give us the figure involved?
If the Deputy wishes to put down a question on any matter concerning this I shall be delighted to answer, but it is not included in the original question.
(Interruptions.)
Could I ask the Minister to answer and give us the figure involved which is on the file in front of him?
Which question am I answering now?
Ceist 35.
Is the figure in the Minister's file?
I have told the Deputy and I have given a detailed reply to the question that was put down.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister has not.
Will the Minister please reply to Ceist 35?
The Minister is misleading the House. He has the figure and he will not give it.